Inherent jurisdiction may set aside an order procured by fraud despite an available appeal, the Patna HC stated.

The Patna HC stated that an application under Section 151 CPC could be maintained to set aside an order under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC where the order was procured by fraud, even though an appeal was available. It held that the existence of an ordinary appellate remedy does not bar the court's inherent power to undo an order obtained by deception. Where the court acted on the mistaken assumption that notice had been duly served and that assumption was induced by fraud, inherent jurisdiction could be invoked to set aside the order and correct the resulting prejudice to the affected party.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable to set aside an order passed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the order had been obtained by fraud, notwithstanding the availability of an appeal.

Analysis: The Court held that the availability of an appeal did not bar recourse to the inherent powers of the court in a case where a prejudicial order had been obtained by fraud practised on the court. An appeal is an ordinary remedy for correcting error, but it does not prevent the court from undoing an order procured by deception. Where the court had proceeded on the mistaken assumption that notice had been duly served, and that assumption was induced by fraud, the court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own order and remedy the wrong caused to the affected party.

Conclusion: The application under Section 151 was maintainable, and the challenge to the order failed.

---